Sea Ice News Volume 4 #2 – The 2013 Sea Ice Forecast Contest

The race to forecast the minimum is on again. Will it be another Serreze death spiral media opportunity? Or will it be ho-hum- nothing to see here, move along?

Once again I’m inviting readers to submit their best guess, best SWAG, or best dartboard result to the poll for the SEARCH Sea Ice Outlook. Deadline, according to the recent announcement I posted on WUWT from ARCUS is close of business Friday June 7th.

Of recent interest has been the recent tendency for the current data to hang between the 1990’s and the 2000 normal line.

We are in that time of year when all of the years converge into a tighter grouping. This makes judging where the current year is going to be a tough challenge at this stage.

I’m going to give WUWT readers an opportunity to make a forecast for the ARCUS SEARCH sea ice contest submission, based on voting. See the poll at the end.

I’ll run this poll each month in the week before the deadline, and we’ll see how we do as the minimum approaches. The value used by ARCUS for judging the contest is the NSIDC value in square kilometers. The object is to guess what the September minimum will be.

I suggest that you should not be using the JAXA graph to forecast minimums, though it it useful for determining short term trends as it is more responsive than the NSDIC graph below, which is averaged.

Here is the forecast poll, deadline is Friday June 7th. Bear in mind that traditionally, forecasts in June have been too high. Last year’s minimum was 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles) at its lowest point on 16 September, and in June, WUWT readers forecast 4.9 million sq kilometers.

Note: The mean is the monthly average in sq km2 for September, which is what the contest is looking for. It is not really as interesting as the minimum, but that’s the number ARCUS is looking for. Given that many of the June forecasts are too high anyway, shooting for the minimum rather than the mean might be just as good.

i needed to incorporate ( approximate ) the number Pi in my prediction somehow – other that that the base ( 5.9 ) is simply ( i think it was a critical constant + or – 90 % ) ) from a model i have developed and revised, predicated upon an earlier algorithm that solves level 37 in candy crush saga, using a minimum number of moves.

Am seeking a spot of guidance if anyone can help? I’m looking for those images that compares an up to date satellite shot of the Arctic with the same views from 20 and 30 years ago.The ones where there’s a pair side by side for easy comparison. (I saw something along these lines recently but can’t find it, not sure if it was on WUWT or Steve Goddard’s site) I’ve also been on the cryosphere today site but for my sins, find it incredibly confusing. Thanks in advance.

But don’t vote too low either, or it will look like WUWT is acknowledging that the climate in the Arctic is changing due to global warming. Which is nonsense, of course, and if it isn’t, it’s a natural cycle.

REPLY: Pay no attention to the butt cheek. This is just another fake comment from “Günther Kirschbaum” aka Neven, in Graz Austria, who can’t handle different views on sea ice, so must revert to childish personas with fake email addresses. – Anthony

Judging from the lack of polar bear deaths I’m going for record sea ice. It’s what the polar bear models predict, and the polar bear models accurately account for their numbers in the past, so we can be confident they will be accurate in the future, despite some polar bears deaths currently hiding in the deep north.

I went with 4.1-4.2 and was worried about that being too high. Astonished to see if anything I’m one of the lowest. Expecting ice to recover from last year, but not by a lot. Ice is still thin and it will be stormy up there again. Expect global temperatures to continue to fall and ice levels to continue to consequently rise and eventually get back to 20th century norms. But ice always lags. I’m not expecting to see a dramatic rise for another three or four years.

Anthony – you might like to consider presenting the poll options in the reverse order from coldest to hottest next year, with the previous year’s minimum marked. That might make it clearer to some of the extreme ice optimists just how massive a jump they are predicting.

Lot of real revenue under that sea ice. I remember start of freeze last year causing projects to be abandoned. Wouldn’t be surprised if the ice breakers make an appearance soon. If that happens all bets will be off.

WUWT readers were pretty far off the mark last year but personally I reckon on this being the turn around year. Arctic sea ice, I believe will start slowly but erratically recovering from 2013 for at least another 20-30 years, eventually getting back to something close to the 1979-2000 average. My estimate for this year then will be consistent with what was predicted last year – 4.9 million. My reasoning for this is that already this Spring there has been a relative cooling of the Arctic and moderately good N. Hemisphere snow cover. I personally suspect that we will not see the melt line graph continue to plummet nearly as late into the season as we did in 2012. As for death spiral – not a chance! Recovery impetus yes – albeit fairly moderate this year.

Barents Sea, in particular needs to catch up winter ice growth. This has been the one area contributing most to lack of ice over the past few years. My real objection tho’ is to the farce of the summer minimum. Really the year’s average mean should be the question. Also, NW passage may not open up this year – another good yard stick, as is the NE passage. Areas of extensive open sea where ice is just one winter thick will be more vulnereble – as ever. We shall see!

Richard111 says:
June 6, 2013 at 4:05 am
Lot of real revenue under that sea ice. I remember start of freeze last year causing projects to be abandoned. Wouldn’t be surprised if the ice breakers make an appearance soon. If that happens all bets will be off.

Well the Yamal is already on its way to evacuate the Russian polar research station because of breakup of the ice that it’s on.

This year, I suggest that we change the methodology to take the midpoint of each temperature bracket, weight each bracket by the number of votes it receives and then calculate a weighted average across all brackets that receive at least 1 vote. I believe that this methodology will be a more accurate reflectection of the WUWT community’s opinion at large, versus the previous methodology which simply reflects the most frequently selected bracket.

I’m staying with original prediction made at begining of year NH ice will stay within normal SD (although I don’t even trust the way mean ice was calculated. NH wsa ICE free in the 1900’s see Goddards site BTW

Unfortunately, even if Arctic ice stays within SD, we probably will not be allowed to see it. From past experience (and records have been kept.),,.you really cannot trust warmist site arctic ice data such as CT and others because I don’t know how many times they have “adjusted” always “down” They fiddle the borders of each section of ice in the NH.to suit the AGW agenda They cannot do that with Antarctica (one block) and as you can see totally different scenario there

If 2012 was an outlier, and if the cold NH temperatures continue, and considering that the Russians just drove 2 trucks over the North Pole to Canada, I’m guessing that the ice will return to 2011 levels. So 4.5 -4.6

People should keep in mind that the storm last year had a couple of effects. It piled up ice on top of itself making it thicker in some places. I also broke off big chunks that floated around but were not counted in the numbers. Hence, there really was more ice than was claimed. This will have a positive influence on the amount of ice this year.

With that said, it will all get down to wind patterns over the next 2-3 months. If the circumpolar winds continue like they have this past winter I expect something around 5.0. If they start blowing the ice out into the AMO warmed North Atlantic, then the number will likely be closer to 4.0.

I’m with Brooks Bridges here – less than 3m sq km – but for totally different reasons. I am extrapolating the 2011-12 trend in the sea ice extent graph above, on a wild presumption that the reason that global ‘temperatures’ have recently been flat could be because the rate of excess heat accumulating in the system has not abated, but is being taken up instead as latent heat of fusion used in melting that additional arctic (and other) ice. Nothing like nailing your colours to the mast and getting yourself shot to pieces!

It is interesting to see how many people are betting high, on an Arctic ice minimum-area recovery. Presumably they consider the flattening of global temperature to signify an abatement of excess heat (or of heat retention), which of course it might be..

I have a sister living at Port Carlisle on the Solway Firth in the north of England, who just rang me here in Australia to complain that their first day of summer had only reached 9*C. She was feeling rather jaded, having been promised a future of barbecue summers luxuriating on the Costa Del Blackpool. I suggested that it could be all that Arctic melt water, dribbling down the North Atlantic and getting in the way of the Gulf Stream. But then spoiled it by telling her how terrible it was down here in Perth, where we’d just endured the chill of a blue-skyed, 22*C sunny winter’s day.

The Solway Firth has always been appallingly cold though. In 1881 the Solway Viaduct, carrying the railway across from Bowness in England to Annan in Scotland, was unceremoniously demolished by six-foot thick ice floes, heading out to sea on the falling tide. Not that anybody has even bothered to replace it.

I always find that sea ice extent isn’t really a useful measurement. Because it doesn’t show whether the ice is 1/4 inch thick or 14 feet thick. It simply counts coverage. This was as good as we could get up to a few years ago since satellites were taking the data without an ability to get accurate sea-ice height data. Since the new satellite cryostat-2 can now get this information and get an accurate measurement of sea ice volume, this is a much more reliable measurement for what is really going on up there.

I’ve been desperately trying not to say “highest in years at this time” because the pattern from the last few years suggests the bottom is about to drop out. I’ll take a new record low, shortly followed by waves of alarmism for $1000, Alex.

Several years ago, during debate on this topic amongst knowledgeable people, a person argued for a low minimum with the statement “the buoys are streaming out” the Fram Straight.
This year, the buoys are not streaming out – the relevant figure on the WUWT SEA ICE PAGE is the Arctic Sea Ice Speed & Drift. Also relevant are storminess, as mentioned in a previous post, and the SEA ICE PAGE “Arctic Temperatures Daily Mean Temperatures North of 80 degree North” from the DMI.
Naturally, these conditions could change in the blink of an eye; they provide little predictive value.
My question, of those who have watched these things closely, is: how much longer do those pro-ice factors need to persist in order to essentially rule out a new record minimum? A week? A month?
Thanks in advance!

“But don’t vote too low either, or it will look like WUWT is acknowledging that the climate in the Arctic is changing due to global warming. Which is nonsense, of course, and if it isn’t, it’s a natural cycle.”

by all means use politics to decide your estimates

REPLY: Mosh, FYI that’s a troll comment from “Gunther Kirschbaum” aka “Neven Acropolis” out of Graz, Austria, who thinks his opinion is so important that he has to create fake names and fake email addresses to get it across. Pay no attention to him. – Anthony

‘My question, of those who have watched these things closely, is: how much longer do those pro-ice factors need to persist in order to essentially rule out a new record minimum? A week? A month?
Thanks in advance!”

Hmm. looking at the record it is rare to see 4 years in a row with a falling minimum, so some folks are estimating no new record this year. On the flip side the mechanical integrity of the ice has suffered considerably in the early part of the season with big cracking events and a persistent cyclone over the area, so there is an outside chance of a complete wipeout of the record. That’s another way of saying that the ice in its current state is much more susceptible to weather than it has been in the past and consequently less predictable.

“The average arctic sea ice monthly extent for September 2012 was the lowest observed in the satellite era at 3.6 million square kilometers, based on National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) estimates—50 % lower than the 1979-2000 average of 7.0 million square kilometers.”

based on no particular data I’m down for 3.6 again this year. 5% chance of a huge blowout.

I wanted a nice memorable number out to the number of digits that various sources always report their data on the ice. I had a hard time deciding between 2.8571428, 4.2857142, or 5.7142857. I’ve used the middle value in the past versions of this so i decided to stick with it. I will leave it to the audience to determine the highly scientific methodology I used to smoothly extract these values from my anal orifice.

UIUC interactive chart provides a good means of tracking the progress of the predictions. If the chart is accurate, then I’m leaning towards considerable increase over last year’s average. Notice that the current area approximates the mean for all years recorded and that at this period last year the extent was considerably smaller.

Number of comments referred to the last summer Arctic storm, however Richard M’s comment appears to be very relevant:People should keep in mind that the storm last year had a couple of effects. It piled up ice on top of itself making it thicker in some places.

After look at data for North Atlantic currents, I am also inclined to think that the summer storm’s effect was neutral, and Richard has provided good explanation.

With 491 votes in the can, and a (1,2,1)/4 triangular filter, I see 6 modes.
The top four are:
Above 6.0 (31) (1,2)/3 filter
5.0-5.1 (29)
4.7-4.8 (25.75)
4.0-4.1 (20)
and a broad 5th mode between 5.2-5.5 (12.75)

Tim says:
June 6, 2013 at 10:19 amPlease could someone explain to me why we are worrying about how much ice there is on an uninhabited part of the world for two months of the year?

Simple.
Actually we aren’t worried, but the Climatists are, as they need to have Arctic ice melt to point to and say “See”? “The Arctic ice is disappearing which spells climate disaster, as predicted by our sacred models”. But sadly for them, as with all things climate, reality doesn’t seem to be playing along with their most ardent wishes.

Just The Facts: yes, I agree with you, some sort of mean should be used this year, rather than the biggest mode. But I think it is wise to use what is called a “censored” mean, where say 10% of the votes are removed from either end. This is so that (possible) cranks do not affect the result – but the sane majority do!

Steven Mosher: do you really fall for this low-sea-ice-affects-the-jet-stream BS? You really fall for what the warmists spout at you with AFAICT no scientific justification. In fact southerly jet streams have been prominent since solar Cycle 23 went low and 24 never came up high.

I think we might see a similar number to last year, but that is not cause for alarm but celebration since it means freer trade up north and it might even mean a bonanza for some people. It has happened in the past so why are we worried about it now?

Since the neutron monitor first caught my eye, I see that it is now showing a steady decline. This should mean a drop in sst, if it follows the past pattern. The monitor should read close to 40 by mid September. Taking into account the current sea ice conditions I voted 5.3-5.4. This year should be similar to 2009.

“Steven Mosher: do you really fall for this low-sea-ice-affects-the-jet-stream BS? You really fall for what the warmists spout at you with AFAICT no scientific justification. In fact southerly jet streams have been prominent since solar Cycle 23 went low and 24 never came up high.

##############

well, it’s nothing quite remarkable. One need only look at the actual data. The issue is not southernly jet streams. The issue, as even Judith Curry has remarked, is that when the arctic warms you see a change in the N-S gradiant. This leads to a slower jet stream and hence a jet stream with larger amplitudes. That’s measureable. So, it’s not “warmists” it’s the facts. Sorry.

since Judith Curry and others have talked about the same phenomena I really dont need to consider the “sources” and go on attacking people. If I want to see people attacked I’ll go to sKs. Instead I Just look at the data. It has no alliances

From the comments thread I see we’ve been suckered by the hockey team. Arctic sea ice extent and volume is the only surviving metric supporting warming. The AGW proponents are hoping to embarrass skeptics by conning us into nailing our colors to the mast of sea ice extent. Because I’m a lukewarm kind of skeptic who believes that a warm planet is a happy planet, it doesn’t really mean a lot to me if the ice goes right down to zero. Sorry…

1. I dont have a any absolute beliefs
2. Its interestng data that one should consider. Judith Curry thinks its interesting, are you going to attack her ?
3. Who said PDO cannot? certainly not me. In fact It would surely play a role.

I dont know why people are so resistent to actually looking at data and seeing for themselves. Its far easier to say “I dont like them, therefore they must be wrong” I know that attitude bugs skeptics, so why do they also do it?

One need only look at the actual data. The issue is not southernly jet streams. The issue, as even Judith Curry has remarked, is that when the arctic warms you see a change in the N-S gradiant. This leads to a slower jet stream and hence a jet stream with larger amplitudes. That’s measureable. So, it’s not “warmists” it’s the facts. Sorry.

But recently Northern Polar Lower Troposphere Temperatures have been the coolest they’ve been in several years, and right around average:

To all:
What is the easiest way to view frame-by-frame an Animated GIF in Windows 7? Movie Maker, Media Center, Photo View all seem unable to see the frames.

GIMP. On Downloads page select “show other downloads” for the “GIMP for Windows” installer, good for Win XP SP3 and later.

Load the image, the frames and background show up in the “Layers” dialog box (Ctrl-L). Leave the background visible, make the layers non-visible, then make the layer (frame) visible that you want to see.

GIMP is a full-fledged graphics package, hope it’s not too hard for you to figure out for such a simple task. I’m no illustrator, don’t know how to use even a tenth of its capability, and I’ve made simple animated GIF’s with it before.

“But recently Northern Polar Lower Troposphere Temperatures have been the coolest they’ve been in several years, and right around average:”

Not talking about those temperatures. You’ll need to look at the fall air temps. Of course you can cherry pick anything you like, but if somebody explains that the effect derives from open water in the fall, then you don’t start by looking at annual data. You start by looking at what people are actually talking about. Again, there are many ways to fool yourself.

As for the high amplitude jet stream, Joe D’Aleo has shown that the positive (warm) AMO phase is a large contributing factor to low sea ice AND the negative phase of the NAO. It happened in the last warm AMO in the 40s and 50s and it is happening now.

Not talking about those temperatures. You’ll need to look at the fall air temps.

It wasn’t particularly warm last fall either compared to the last decade.

Of course you can cherry pick anything you like

How exactly is showing a complete data record and using the word “recently” a “cherry pick” in your mind?

but if somebody explains that the effect derives from open water in the fall, then you don’t start by looking at annual data.

Do you like monthly data better?:

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

You start by looking at what people are actually talking about.

Yes, and then you look at the data and research to see if what they are talking about makes any sense. In the graph above it looks like 2007 and 2012, the years with the largest Sea Ice Area Anomalies, actually had less warming:

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

Furthermore it appears that the Arctic Temperature pattern set in in 2004, 3 years prior to the 2007 drop in Arctic Sea Ice Area.

And would you care to discuss ice — icluding the Antarctic? That is part of the planet’s ice cover, too. Including the Antarctic gives us a global metric. Over all, global ice is right at its long term average [the red line]. So why the wild-eyed arm waving over one specific region — a region that is also returning to it’s long term average?

Trying to fit a region like the Arctic to a global model run causes credibility problems, as we see here. It means that the model was wrong.

On one side, the spring has been colder than average, and the northern atlantic and northern pacific sea surface anomalies would let us think that the outlook should be quite positive this season.

But on the other side, last year has seen a record low sea ice area since satelite records began, and the reformed ice is rather thin in many places, despite the area is somewhat normal now. Furthemore, there are already melted pools of sea water within the ice shelf next to siberian coast, and in many places next to north pole the ice has shown already weaknesses. As a result i’m rather pessimistic (despite i’m a climate sceptic, yes) for the outlook this year.

Like I predicted in the other thread, I feel the thin nature of the ice from last summer’s melt and then refreeze will allow for rapid meting this July/August for a Sept minimum of 3.55. I do think the next few years will see slightly increasing minimums bsck to the 2007 -09 period

I put this in Tips & Notes already, but I’ll repeat it here. On your Sea Ice Page would you consider changing the side-by-side Cryosphere Today images so that 2012 is on the left instead of 2007, since 2012 set a record low? That was the original purpose of the comparison in the first place, I assume, i.e., seeing how today’s extent compares with the record low year, so the change seems appropriate.

Steven Mosher says:
June 6, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Richard,
Huh?
1. I dont have a any absolute beliefs

Of course not. Now, if you could really look objectively at the data you would realize just how wrong your statement is.

2. Its interesting (sic) data that one should consider. Judith Curry thinks its interesting, are you going to attack her ?

I don’ t care what she said, I was referencing what you have said. And, I said nothing about whether or not this data is interesting. Ask yourself why you are so defensive.

3. Who said PDO cannot? certainly not me. In fact It would surely play a role.

In the PDO thread you stated you didn’t think it could be a factor since it was just temperatures (which is wrong). You were happy to throw out any possible influence for the PDO on global changes in temperatures. Check your own words.

I dont know why people are so resistant (sic) to actually looking at data and seeing for themselves. Its far easier to say “I don’t (sic) like them, therefore they must be wrong” I know that attitude bugs skeptics, so why do they also do it?

Weird.

All I did is point out you happily accepted a conjecture about jet streams in one context while ignoring them in another. It demonstrates that you are looking for reasons to support preconceived beliefs. You may think you are open minded but your words tell a different story.

The poll is now closed. Thanks to everyone who voted, and especially thanks to all those trolls (and we both know who you are) who tried to skew the poll by voting for “6.0 or greater”, which happens every time. Got you covered though, since I anticipate such actions.

I don’t think that all the ice will have gone by mid September but the amount left will be much smaller than what has accumulated at the south pole by mid September.The arctic sea ice minimum depends on many things such as oil drilling,icebreakers and even temperature it is much to hard to predict.

As the votes were skewed, I went through the thread here and listed all the serious estimates, taking the lower estimate if there were two with 0.1 m/sq/km between them, or the average if the spread was greater for an individual estimate.

Number of estimates: 35

Spread: 2.7 – 5.9

Average: 4.4

Last year: 3.61

As the September extent has recovered by 800 000 sq/km (+) only twice in the record, and considering the state of the ice, the average result is an unlikely proposition. The largest year to year recovery was 1.75 m/sq/km (1995 – 1996); the 2nd largest was 1 m/sq/km. Estimates above 5 m/sq/km (there were 7 of those) may be possible, but highly unlikey.

“All I did is point out you happily accepted a conjecture about jet streams in one context while ignoring them in another.”

really? Personally I would say that the jury is still out. But when people ask the question as they did, “who cares about the arctic?” it would seem quite reasonable to point folks to some of the theories actively being persued. But of course anytime anybody points to anything that suggest the arctic may be important, people attack the reserchers rather than simply saying
” hmm, that’s interesting, I’ll have a look”

I put this in Tips & Notes already, but I’ll repeat it here. On your Sea Ice Page would you consider changing the side-by-side Cryosphere Today images so that 2012 is on the left instead of 2007, since 2012 set a record low

I’m not speaking for Anthony, but I believe the arrangement of the side-by-side charts is done that way at Cryosphere Today. You can click on the image and change the dates at CT.

It is odd.
5.4-5.5 gets 33 votes
5.5-5.6 gets 0
5.6-5.7 gets 24 votes.
Less than 2.0 is the only other zero.

A mean of 4.68 (throwing out the above 6)
A mean of at least 4.797 using a 6.05 centroid for the above 6.
P90 at 3.71 or 3.79 (second value includes the “Greater than 6″)
P75 at 4.19 or 4.24
P50 at 4.73 or 4.8
P25 at 5.21 or 5.45
P10 at 5.61 or 5.95